analyze_db_health

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with this by using 'analyzes' and describing read-only checks. The description adds value by explaining what each check examines (e.g., invalid indexes, connection utilization, vacuum health), which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a lead sentence and a bulleted list of checks. It is appropriately sized given the number of checks, and each bullet adds necessary information. It is slightly long but not wasteful, earning a strong score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It thoroughly covers the input parameter, enumerates all health check options, and describes the default behavior, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already lists valid values for health_type with 100% coverage. The description enhances this by explaining what each value does and explicitly noting that comma-separated lists are allowed, which is not in the schema. This additional semantic detail goes beyond the schema baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('analyzes database health') and enumerates eight distinct health check categories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_workload_indexes and execute_sql, which focus on other aspects of database operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for using the tool by detailing each health check option and the default behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_workload_indexes, nor does it mention exclusions, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.